It certainly should be for the anti- car fundamentalists in here who regularly argue pedestrians can never ever possibly be at fault under any conceivable circumstance if hit by a car since they’re the vulnerable party.Really tricky question.
Surely you are aware that there are hundreds if not thousands of railway level crossings in this country fully accessible to pedestrians, right? Some of them don’t even have barriers at all. Others do, but the barriers are designed to stop vehicles and any pedestrian or cyclist can simply walk through the generous gap left.Definitely think we should put T & P in charge of urban planning. 8ft fences along all roads and barriers at pedestrian crossings ftw!!!
Really giving platinumsage a run for his money hereSurely you are aware that there are hundreds if not thousands of railway level crossings in this country fully accessible to pedestrians, right? Some of them don’t even have barriers at all. Others do, but the barriers are designed to stop vehicles and any pedestrian or cyclist can simply walk through the generous gap left.
So how do you feel about pedestrians and cyclists accidentally injured or killed at level crossings? Because anyone who seriously contests that peds can’t ever be held responsible or at fault in a collision with a car regardless of circumstances simply because they are the more vulnerable party can’t possibly suggest it should be any different at level crossings. Why should a fragile ped be expected to stop at the edge of a rail crossing and look for approaching trains?
I look forward to your (and teuchter ’s) explanation of why peds’ behaviour and burden of responsibility should be any different when crossing a set of railway tracks and crossing a busy road.
I notice you are dodging the question…Really giving platinumsage a run for his money here
Because it’s a stupid question. Stupid and pro-car seems to go hand in hand.I notice you are dodging the question…
.
Well I reckon those kind of situations, we should make them a special kind of railway, where the trains that run on them run at a slow speed, and the rail lines are kind of built into a paved surface that pedestrians and even cars can also use. And they should be driven on sight, like a bus, not following signalling systems that tell the driver the route far ahead is clear and free of obstruction. And they should have things like magnetic brakes which mean they can stop more quickly than a normal train, almost as quickly as a bus or a car can.
Maybe this is all just a crazy idea but anyway maybe we can think of a special name for these kinds of railways.
Good to see car ownership decreasing across London. We’ll get there eventually!
View attachment 330599
Nowhere nearly as stupid that the indescribably daft and plain dangerous sentiment that as the most vulnerable user of all, a pedestrians should not have to look before crossing a road, which you seem to adhere to.Because it’s a stupid question. Stupid and pro-car seems to go hand in hand.
Er, no we won't. Because as car ownership decreases, car club share use will increase. The overall number of cars on towns and cities might be somewhat reduced to a moderate degree at best, but you will never, ever be rid of them.Good to see car ownership decreasing across London. We’ll get there eventually!
View attachment 330599
Amazing that after 7,800 posts on this thread you are still struggling to understand really basic stuff, like "drivers should be ready for pedestrians to do unexpected things" does not equal "pedestrians should not have to look at all before crossing a road".Nowhere nearly as stupid that the indescribably daft and plain dangerous sentiment that as the most vulnerable user of all, a pedestrians should not have to look before crossing a road, which you seem to adhere to.
So I'll ask you again: if you believe pedestrians should not have to look at all, let alone yield to oncoming traffic on roads, why should they behave any differently on level crossings, certainly those that are not govened by barriers and which allow pedestrians to cross the tracks legally at all times?
Okay, yes, pedestrians should pay attention but also we should reduce the risk posed by cars - slow speed limits, LTNs to stop rat running, more zebra crossing, remove parking to help sight lines etc etcNowhere nearly as stupid that the indescribably daft and plain dangerous sentiment that as the most vulnerable user of all, a pedestrians should not have to look before crossing a road, which you seem to adhere to.
So I'll ask you again: if you believe pedestrians should not have to look at all, let alone yield to oncoming traffic on roads, why should they behave any differently on level crossings, certainly those that are not govened by barriers and which allow pedestrians to cross the tracks legally at all times?
I’m not against car ownership or cars generally just that we should stop prioritising them.Er, no we won't. Because as car ownership decreases, car club share use will increase. The overall number of cars on towns and cities might be somewhat reduced to a moderate degree at best, but you will never, ever be rid of them.
Which brings me nicely to the other question you have consistently refused to answer. Are you against car ownership, or all private car use including hire and club car vehicles? Please answer this time.
I’m not against car ownership or cars generally
We’ve tried that for cars & it hasn’t worked. Ban
we need a total and complete ban on cars
Fuck it - actually, let’s really just ban cars!
I suggest we ban cars
difficult to tell which is more amusing - the amount of effort you’ve gone to to get those quotes together or the fact you take everything people say on message boards literally!Do you just make up random opinions on the spot?
Good to see car ownership decreasing across London. We’ll get there eventually!
View attachment 330599
For more than 90 years, there has been a tacit agreement in the US to treat the right to walk as dispensable, and to treat each death in traffic as an individual loss to be grieved privately, behind closed doors. These responses to the dangers of walking and biking have kept deaths among pedestrians and cyclists out of public view. They have promoted a tendency to attribute such deaths to individual failures for which individuals alone — reckless drivers or careless pedestrians — are responsible.
But a century ago, judges defended pedestrians’ rights in city streets. The convenience of drivers was no grounds for infringing these rights. Any motorist driving too fast to avoid injuring or killing a pedestrian was regarded as speeding. Deaths to pedestrians, and especially to children, were regarded as intolerable public losses to be publicly grieved by the whole community.
These ceremonies made public issues out of private losses, and committed whole cities to making walking safer, even at a high cost to drivers’ convenience. They also signified that pedestrian safety was not to be secured at the cost of pedestrian rights; a city had to accommodate walking at least as much as it accommodated driving. From this perspective, a pedestrian’s death was never just the fault of a careless walker or a reckless driver. It reflected the failure of a city to defend the right to walk.
Among automotive interest groups — then sometimes known as “motordom” — this was not a price they were willing to pay. Even in city safety campaigns, motordom sometimes ridiculed the monuments to the victims of violent death in the streets. A float in Washington D.C.’s Safety Week include a mock grave for “A. J. Walker.” At a parade for Detroit’s Safety Week in May 1923, the Packard Motor Car Company entered a float bearing a sham tombstone that resembled Baltimore’s monument. Its inscription read: “Erected to the Memory of Mr. J. Walker. He Stepped from the Curb without Looking.” The Detroit Automobile Club awarded Packard a silver cup for this float.
As efforts to restrict driving grew, motordom intensified its opposition. Two weeks before the Post-Dispatch editorial that warned of “mechanical restrictions” to reduce speed, Cincinnati voters considered a ballot proposition that would have required car owners to equip their vehicles with speed governors preventing them from exceeding 25 miles per hour. About 42,000 city residents had signed petitions to get the initiative on the ballot. With the help of the auto industry, local interest groups organized a successful “Vote No” campaign.
The threat of mandatory mechanical speed limitation convinced motordom that it had to change how traffic safety was defined. Two months after the vote in Cincinnati, Fred Caley, the head of the National Motorists Association, denounced the safety monuments. A competitor to the American Automobile Association with about 350 member clubs, NMA was striving to prove itself the better national advocate for motorists’ interests. The safety monuments, Caley said in a press release, are “the most fanatical safety plan conceived within recent years.” He called them “memorials to the stupidity displayed in accident prevention.”
I'd always assumed his arguments are so shit because he's trying to be undercover anti-car and make the rest of them look bad (not that they need help).I do like the admission that cars make places unpleasant and dangerous. Fits well with the thread.
So you’re accepting cars can be a problem!! Welcome to the war on cars!!I hope the anti-carists on this thread are counting their lucky stars they don't live in a more pro-car country than the UK, such as Denmark.
Here's a typical Danish beach, and yes, those are all cars:
View attachment 330641
At least in the UK we strike a reasonable balance when it comes to such things and you can relax with your family on any typical sandy beach without being worried about getting run over.
yes, I recommend Berrow Sands.It's nonsense anyway - there are several beaches in the UK that you're allowed to park or drive on.